Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

"we're all in this together"


Guest eFestivals

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

back on topic

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11512287

Philip Green says that the government could save what looks like billions if they took advantage of sopending power and their credit rating. Why don't they clean their own house before taking more money away from those people who need it.

:angry:

except of course that central buying also requires a central distribution operation, along with the fact that what gets bought is the lowest common denominator stuff - which a lot of the time ends up as not being suitable for where it ends up.

The govt would save more by properly taxing c**ts like Green rather than giving him a platform to tell us how to save money while he waltzes off with billions that should be ours. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 633
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Same old Conservatives. Peddling their conservative values - tax breaks for married couples, benefit breaks for the disabled. family values for the 'deserving', benefits being seen as a drain on society while tax avoiders are seen as respectable.

If we're all in it together, why aren't we helpling those most in need? Benefit cuts at a time when living costs are rising will hit the poorest the hardest.

This stuff really winds me up, because those at the margins of society are allowed to be hit the hardest, because of society's need to scapegoat those who are really most in need of our support.

I'm not sure this idea that we are taxing 'the rich' is helpful either. We're all in it together, remember, so we all will potentially pay a higher percentage of tax on our income above the basic rate threshold. There is no us and them, or a different taxation system for certain people. it's a fair system that should apply to everyone.

Though certain members of society are able to exploit loopholes, of course. But let's not forget, avoiding fulfilling your obligations to society is perfectly OK, claiming benefits fraudulently is evil. :rolleyes:

Too many people buy into the capitalist value system, whereby the more affluent are somehow seen as entitled to their income and justified in avoiding paying taxes, and those unable to work are victimised with society's blessing. Each are a drain on our resources, with tax evasion and avoidance being a much bigger drain, and yet somehow avoids the stigma attached to 'benefit scroungers'.

I don't think we can call ourselves civilised until we show compassion to the disadvantaged and stop condoning the attitude of people who already have more than average, and are determined not to share.

It's not like there's a maximum wage, and those earning above it are forced to surrender it all in taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends iof you have a brain that's able to process choices. Currently you're demonstrating that you don't. ;)

Yet if your sight goes it doesn't. You're f**ked.

But by that very line you're demonstrating that you believe that you have a right to that greater wage forever because you did go to uni. The reality is that you're only able to get that greater wage if you're able to utilise the extra skills you leant - no different to the hypothetical builder you mentioned.

Just as that builder wouldn't write himself down lightly, neither would you. So somewhere in there despite your inability to do joined up thinking, you're still doing the same thing and believing it right for you, and so also right for that builder you suggested to be wrong. ;)

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole attack on disability benefits is the biggest irony. It was bloody Thatcher who started putting people on disability benefits in the first place so that she could hide how many people there actually were unemployed. And now yon f*ckin idiot is putting them back the other way so he can do exactly the same and claim that when unemployment shoots up its because they've recognised that there are people fit for work who aren't looking for it and he's addressed that problem and not because were entering another bloody recession. I haven't read the whole thread but to all those who don't know - and there will be some who have expressed the idea I guarantee it - just because you cant see someone limping or using a guide dog doesn't mean they aren't disabled.

This whole attack on benefits is a farrago. Last week's announcement that nobody would be able to claim more than the average wage is nonsensical. First of all, that actually affects around 900 families. If you are enacting legislation to affect 900 people, that is shit legislation. It is a nothing problem blown out of proportion by anecdotal bollox in the daily mail. It is punishing children for the situation their parent/s find themselves in - be that through wilful stupidity or just the way life sometimes goes for you. Are we really going to see children go hungry or cold or without clothing because of the way their parents' lives are? It's tantamount to state sponsored child abuse and puts Moron on a par with the pope. And it fails to take into account that by 2055 we will have a 1:1 ratio of tax paying adults to pensioners on current birth rate trends - we need to be encouraging and paying people to have more kids to secure the future, not bloody less.

If we want to save benefits money, let's start taxing the likes of BP and Tesco and Shell (and every other bloody company)for every pound their employees have claimed in working families tax credits - why is the state subsidising Tesco shareholders by allowing them to underpay their staff to make more profit? To make work more attractive to those on benefits, make work pay more not already meagre benefits less.

We're in a race to the gutter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same old Conservatives. Peddling their conservative values - tax breaks for married couples, benefit breaks for the disabled. family values for the 'deserving', benefits being seen as a drain on society while tax avoiders are seen as respectable.

If we're all in it together, why aren't we helpling those most in need? Benefit cuts at a time when living costs are rising will hit the poorest the hardest.

This stuff really winds me up, because those at the margins of society are allowed to be hit the hardest, because of society's need to scapegoat those who are really most in need of our support.

I'm not sure this idea that we are taxing 'the rich' is helpful either. We're all in it together, remember, so we all will potentially pay a higher percentage of tax on our income above the basic rate threshold. There is no us and them, or a different taxation system for certain people. it's a fair system that should apply to everyone.

Though certain members of society are able to exploit loopholes, of course. But let's not forget, avoiding fulfilling your obligations to society is perfectly OK, claiming benefits fraudulently is evil. :rolleyes:

Too many people buy into the capitalist value system, whereby the more affluent are somehow seen as entitled to their income and justified in avoiding paying taxes, and those unable to work are victimised with society's blessing. Each are a drain on our resources, with tax evasion and avoidance being a much bigger drain, and yet somehow avoids the stigma attached to 'benefit scroungers'.

I don't think we can call ourselves civilised until we show compassion to the disadvantaged and stop condoning the attitude of people who already have more than average, and are determined not to share.

It's not like there's a maximum wage, and those earning above it are forced to surrender it all in taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Panorama about Ashcroft on now if anyone hadn't noticed.

Did they manage to include how the day before he became 'UK resident for tax purposes' he transferred all his UK assets into the name of his (non-dom) son, to ensure that the UK tax authorities don't actually get their hands on his money?

And did they also include how he then resigned his tory party post, because he's incredibly pissed off they they forced him to actually become UK resident for tax purposes - because although he and they had publicly agreed that he would do, the secret deal with the tories was that they'd never hold him to it?

The man is a c**t of the very highest order. And the tories are too, for going along with him (as well as all the other thieves which are bleeding this country dry [like Green] while telling us we have to suffer austerity measures).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they manage to include how the day before he became 'UK resident for tax purposes' he transferred all his UK assets into the name of his (non-dom) son, to ensure that the UK tax authorities don't actually get their hands on his money?

And did they also include how he then resigned his tory party post, because he's incredibly pissed off they they forced him to actually become UK resident for tax purposes - because although he and they had publicly agreed that he would do, the secret deal with the tories was that they'd never hold him to it?

The man is a c**t of the very highest order. And the tories are too, for going along with him (as well as all the other thieves which are bleeding this country dry [like Green] while telling us we have to suffer austerity measures).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

just because you cant see someone limping or using a guide dog doesn't mean they aren't disabled.

soooo, soooooo true!! :angry:

I've got a friend who has been registered as blind for around 20 years (he has a degenerative genetic blindness of some kind, that effects all males in his family while the women carry the gene and pass it on to their offspring. He had reasonable sight until about aged 20, when it started to fade away quite fast).

He's recently been 'grassed up' to the social three times, by people who don't believe that he's blind, because he's managed to over-come some of the visible effects of his disability and live what looks to some as a normal life.

What is he doing that has made these people think that he's able to see really (yet I've seen him step in front of double decker buses that he's not seen)? He's able to walk his dog twice a day without assistance. His dog isn't an 'official' guide dog, but it has the same effect, and so that's how he does it.

Some people really are utter bastards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole attack on disability benefits is the biggest irony. It was bloody Thatcher who started putting people on disability benefits in the first place so that she could hide how many people there actually were unemployed. And now yon f*ckin idiot is putting them back the other way so he can do exactly the same and claim that when unemployment shoots up its because they've recognised that there are people fit for work who aren't looking for it and he's addressed that problem and not because were entering another bloody recession. I haven't read the whole thread but to all those who don't know - and there will be some who have expressed the idea I guarantee it - just because you cant see someone limping or using a guide dog doesn't mean they aren't disabled.

This whole attack on benefits is a farrago. Last week's announcement that nobody would be able to claim more than the average wage is nonsensical. First of all, that actually affects around 900 families. If you are enacting legislation to affect 900 people, that is shit legislation. It is a nothing problem blown out of proportion by anecdotal bollox in the daily mail. It is punishing children for the situation their parent/s find themselves in - be that through wilful stupidity or just the way life sometimes goes for you. Are we really going to see children go hungry or cold or without clothing because of the way their parents' lives are? It's tantamount to state sponsored child abuse and puts Moron on a par with the pope. And it fails to take into account that by 2055 we will have a 1:1 ratio of tax paying adults to pensioners on current birth rate trends - we need to be encouraging and paying people to have more kids to secure the future, not bloody less.

If we want to save benefits money, let's start taxing the likes of BP and Tesco and Shell (and every other bloody company)for every pound their employees have claimed in working families tax credits - why is the state subsidising Tesco shareholders by allowing them to underpay their staff to make more profit? To make work more attractive to those on benefits, make work pay more not already meagre benefits less.

We're in a race to the gutter

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. Working Tax Credits are really a way to prop up businesses by allowing them to employ people at below the market value. So it's a crafty business subsidy presented as though it's helping the ordinary workers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is significantly less 'milking of the system' than The Daily Mail or that bloody awful show on BBC 1 earlier would have you believe - the bloody government reckons it pays out 4 times as much in wrongly calculated benefits as people claim that they aren't legitimately entitled to! We need to stop taking extreme anecdotal evidence as being symptomatic of the whole situation.

And you should know better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Yes the gov probably does pay out far more in screwed up claims and inefficiency, but people DO still abuse the system, you can't deny that. It's doubtless not up to Daily Mail hysteria levels but it does happen.

And people go out on the rob, kill people, and all sorts.

Such things (including benefit fraud) shouldn't be accepted and action should be taken against offenders that can be identified as such, but just as no one expects crimes such as murder or robbing to disappear entirely there needs to be the same recognition towards things such as benefits too.

And the reality is: the amount of fraud in the system is tiny. It's at around the lowest that will ever be managed.

Having realised that fact, time should be spent on things that will make a difference, and not extra efforts made where little will result from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone expects it to disappear, I just think people do see examples of fraud happening around them and want to see something done about it, like tougher sentences when people are caught robbing the system and not just a few hours community service.

I think a lot of MP's should have had criminal convictions for their expenses racket too, so it's not just one end of the spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same old Conservatives. Peddling their conservative values - tax breaks for married couples, benefit breaks for the disabled. family values for the 'deserving', benefits being seen as a drain on society while tax avoiders are seen as respectable.

If we're all in it together, why aren't we helpling those most in need? Benefit cuts at a time when living costs are rising will hit the poorest the hardest.

This stuff really winds me up, because those at the margins of society are allowed to be hit the hardest, because of society's need to scapegoat those who are really most in need of our support.

I'm not sure this idea that we are taxing 'the rich' is helpful either. We're all in it together, remember, so we all will potentially pay a higher percentage of tax on our income above the basic rate threshold. There is no us and them, or a different taxation system for certain people. it's a fair system that should apply to everyone.

Though certain members of society are able to exploit loopholes, of course. But let's not forget, avoiding fulfilling your obligations to society is perfectly OK, claiming benefits fraudulently is evil. :rolleyes:

Too many people buy into the capitalist value system, whereby the more affluent are somehow seen as entitled to their income and justified in avoiding paying taxes, and those unable to work are victimised with society's blessing. Each are a drain on our resources, with tax evasion and avoidance being a much bigger drain, and yet somehow avoids the stigma attached to 'benefit scroungers'.

I don't think we can call ourselves civilised until we show compassion to the disadvantaged and stop condoning the attitude of people who already have more than average, and are determined not to share.

It's not like there's a maximum wage, and those earning above it are forced to surrender it all in taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I don't think anyone expects it to disappear, I just think people do see examples of fraud happening around them and want to see something done about it, like tougher sentences when people are caught robbing the system and not just a few hours community service.

I think a lot of MP's should have had criminal convictions for their expenses racket too, so it's not just one end of the spectrum.

I think you nail it at the end - if those MPs aren't being banged up for making false claims, why should people on benefits who do nothing different? ;)

Yet benefit cheats DO get prosecuted, which is more than the vast majority of MPs have been, including those who committed clear fraud (step forwards David Laws, and others).

So unless the same attitude is taken all round, it is never the case of "we're all in this together", it's a case of going after the easy and weakest targets. It's sickening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...